Mountain Overlay
District and Rural Areas Resource Protection Work Session

SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:

Protection of
Albemarle's Rural Areas Resources

STAFF
CONTACT(S):

Tucker, Foley,
Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, McDowell

LEGAL REVIEW:Yes

AGENDA DATE:

December 13,
2006

ACTION: XINFORMATION:

CONSENT AGENDA:

ACTION:INFORMATION:

ATTACHMENTS:Yes

REVIEWED BY:

BACKGROUND:

On September 13, 2006, the
Board of Supervisors held a work session to discuss the Mountain Overlay
District (MOD) Committee's recommendations for a three-part program to "protect
the economic, cultural, and natural resources of Albemarle County's mountains."
The Committee's report advised, "several aspects of the proposal, such as
enhanced protection for critical slopes, might be appropriate for general
application in the County's Rural Areas." The Board directed staff to
investigate extending the protection measures recommended in the MOD framework
to the rest of the Rural Areas and to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission to review this report. A copy of the proposed MOD framework is
attached as reference (Attachment A). The Board did not vote on the Mountain
Overlay District Resolution of Intent.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Goal 2: Protect the County's
natural resources.

DISCUSSION:

The Proposal for
Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources recommended by the MOD
Committeeconsists of what the Committee referred to as a "three-legged
stool." This three-part program includes: a) a mountain ordinance framework that
focuses on protection of the MOD environment; b) principles that would mandate
and govern Rural Cluster Subdivisions; and (c) public acquisition of interests
in land. The Committee stressed that all three "legs" would provide the
comprehensive approach needed for protecting the lands in the Mountain Overlay
District (Attachment A).

As the Board requested, this
work session is to review an assessment of applying the MOD recommendations
throughout the Rural Areas. Staff’s analysis of applying the MOD
recommendations throughout the Rural Areas is available in Attachment B. The
format for this review includes the actual MOD framework quoted from the
individual components, applicable comprehensive plan policies, existing
ordinance regulations, and a question/answer segment to discuss some of the
issues.

BUDGET IMPACT:

When the Board has
determined the direction regarding each of these regulations, staff will prepare
a budget impact analysis. It is anticipated that additional staff resources
would be required to process, inspect, and enforce many of these additional
regulations. If the Board elects to do so, those additional costs may be
recovered in permit fees. Additionally, it is anticipated that providing
accurate surveys and detailed plans, as well as any additional permit fees,
would increase upfront costs to builders. It is anticipated that all of the
builder’s costs would be passed on to the future homebuyers. While economic
theory suggests these increased costs would constrain development activity in
the Rural Areas, staff cannot speculate on whether the additional costs would
have an appreciable effect on the rate of Rural Areas development.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The purpose of this work
session is to provide an opportunity for the Board and Planning Commission to
give staff direction. Based on direction given at this work session, staff would
develop both a Resolution of Intent and ordinance amendments to comply with the
Board’s direction. To be able to proceed with that effort, staff needs answers
to the following questions:

1.Does
the Board wish to proceed with any of the MOD Committee recommendations
(Attachment B - Part A) and, if so, does the Board wish to limit all of these to
a Mountain Overlay District or to expand this to include the entire Rural
Areas? If the changes were applied to all Rural Areas property in the same
manner, the need to create a Mountain Overlay District is eliminated while
creation of the district would be important if any provisions were to be limited
to that district.

2.If
the Board decides to proceed with any of the proposed changes, which changes
would they like brought forward? To assist the Board, the following list
describes the possible changes discussed and provides staff’s position.

a.Critical
Slopes. Staff believes applying the critical slopes provision over the entire
Rural Areas would be effective at reducing development impacts and protecting
natural resources. Staff believes this would provide some, but not all, of the
natural resource protection anticipated with the previously considered
subdivision phasing and clustering provisions. Staff believes limiting this
provision to the MOD would also provide a benefit, but a much smaller one and
would increase the complexity of plan reviews by creating two separate standards
rather than simplifying with one standard. It should be recognized that this
provision can reduce the ability of some properties to exercise all of their
development rights, but would provide for at least one dwelling on the property
as it currently exists. If applied to the entire Rural Areas rather than the
MOD, the number of properties potentially affected would significantly
increase.

b.Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan. Staff believes there is not sufficient benefit for reducing the
disturbance area to 2,500 square feet for all building permits, as building
permits for new Rural Areas’ dwellings all fall within the current 10,000 square
foot area threshold. Reducing the area to 2,500 square feet would expand
coverage to construction such as additions to houses and garages, which staff
considers to have much smaller impacts. If there is interest in pursuing the
critical slopes provisions and/or verifying safe access, staff will need to stop
allowing use of Agreements in-lieu of a Plan and require complete E&S Plans,
which include existing topography and all proposed grading. Ending use of
Agreements in-lieu of a Plan does not require any ordinance changes but will
significantly increase the amount of work staff must do in both permit review
and inspections. It would also increase the cost to applicants for building
permits in the Rural Areas.

c.Stream
Buffers. Staff has previously indicated a 200’ buffer width can be justified in
the MOD, based on the increased sensitivity of those areas. Staff does not
believe water resource protection can justify a 200’ stream buffer for the
entire Rural Areas. Staff believes including stream buffers for intermittent
streams throughout the Rural Areas, as is currently done in the Water Supply
Areas, is a justifiable protection of natural resources and consistent with the
County’s Strategic Plan Goal for enhanced protection of water resources.
Including intermittent streams throughout the entire Rural Areas would
potentially impact the ability of property owners to exercise all of their
development rights, but provisions already in the Water Protection Ordinance
allow at least some reasonable use of the property.

d.Building
Heights. Staff believes protection of ridges and crests provides benefit within
the MOD, but there is little benefit in applying this to the entire Rural
Areas. Within the MOD, it should be noted that the benefit of limiting building
height with respect to the ridgeline has been challenged as having unanticipated
impacts, such as encouraging building on the slope near the ridge, which
potentially increases both the natural resource impact and visibility. Staff
does not believe that

application of building
height restrictions in relation to ridgelines should be applied to the remainder
of the Rural Areas.

e.Safe Access.
Staff believes this provision is already in the Zoning Ordinance, but the
ordinance is not specific on what is required and difficult to enforce without
seeing grading that demonstrates the requirement is being satisfied. As
discussed with E&S Plans, assuring compliance with this provision would require
the County to stop allowing Agreements in-lieu of a Plan for new dwellings in
the Rural Areas. It should also be noted the Fire/Rescue Department has
indicated that safe access is an issue throughout the County. Based on this,
staff believes this must be uniformly applied across the entire Rural Areas.

f.Waivers
and Modifications. Waivers, modifications or variances are available in the
Zoning Ordinance. The MOD framework provides clarification of the intent and
offers administrative waivers, under certain conditions. To simplify process
and assure consistent application, staff believes waivers and modifications
should be kept administrative whenever possible and limited to that needed to
allow at least some reasonable use of the property.

g.Guidelines
for Cluster Subdivision Ordinance. The existing regulations apply to both the
MOD and the Rural Areas. Staff does not believe that the existing ordinance
needs modification.

h.Additional Protection
for Mountain Resources. Staff believes additional protection measures for the
Rural Areas can be explored, but completion of the current efforts should take
priority over starting any new effort.

ATTACHMENTS

A-Proposal for Protection of Albemarle County's Mountain Resources

B- Staff analysis of applying the MOD
recommendations throughout the Rural Areas